togetherai_completion

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention authentication requirements beyond the api_key parameter, rate limits, output format, or any potential side effects. For a tool that makes API calls, this is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could benefit from additional detail without becoming verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about usage and expected return values. It fails to clarify what the completion output looks like or how to handle the response. The description is too brief for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema. It does not explain the role of required parameters like api_key or prompt, but the schema already provides those details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (run), the resource (text completion), and the scope (any Together AI model). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like togetherai_chat_completion by specifying 'text completion' rather than 'chat completion'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like togetherai_chat_completion, togetherai_create_embedding, or togetherai_list_models. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.